Stakeholder perspectives on nature, people and sustainability at Mount Kilimanjaro

The application of the IPBES framework enabled comparability needed for developing narratives stakeholder visions that can help identify new pathways towards sustainability and guide planning while retaining context-based nuances remain unresolved with non-participatory methods. Read free Plain Language Summary this article on Journal blog. Effective approaches to challenges require both a global perspective an in-depth understanding local social–ecological systems (Martín-López et al., 2020), which are traditionally accessed through literature field measurements. Both understandings perspectives also reside stakeholders be elicited dialogues social assessments using different forms knowledge mobilization sharing as well various methods from sciences humanities (Lakerveld 2015; Orenstein & Groner, 2014; Tengö 2017). By placing at centre research, complement predominantly ecological economic typically adopted in ecosystem-related might overlook relevant aspects (Orenstein Raymond 2013; Scholte 2015). They further enable embrace diversity nature its management residing among groups segments (Brondízio 2021), whose views affected by social, cultural factors, including prior involvement initiatives (e.g. Caballero-Serrano 2017; Cuni-Sanchez 2019; Lamarque 2011; Lewan Söderqvist, 2002). Local perceptions particularly they may capture is not yet recorded because often influential guiding decision-making, justifying actions 2014) resolving conservation trade-offs 2019). Accordingly, integration weaving academic non-academic origins process co-production key addressing complex questions (Norström 2020; collection contextualized information accurately captures diverse array their weaved quantitative desktop findings methodologically challenging. Yet it offers powerful comparisons across scales, geographies contexts, just accounting grassroot needs. In context, conceptual Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform Biodiversity Ecosystem Services (IPBES, Díaz 2015) represents unique opportunity take up challenge. Here we report first attempt apply participatory assessment nature, people Mount Kilimanjaro structured tool capturing perspectives. We highlight how these reveal salient differences between enrich current relationship around options decision-making action more sustainable future. highest free-standing mountain world (Newark, 1991) hosts approximately 2,500 plant few hundreds bird species. classification elevational zones matter (Hemp, 2006a; Hemp Hemp, 2008; Liseki, Misana, 2012; Molina-Venegas, Fischer, Soini, 2005a). Habitat based agro-ecological delineates highland zone coffee-banana belt (Chagga) home garden area (1,200–1,800 m a.s.l.), midland characterized maize-bean (900–1,200 a.s.l.) lowland (<900 extensive livestock grazing. Scientists turn distinguish 12 major habitat types along gradient (colline savanna, submontane-lower montane rainforest, Ocotea forest, Podocarpus Erica alpine Helichrysum vegetation, forest shifted lower elevations due disturbance, logged meadow, Chagga gardens, coffee plantations maize fields, 2006b). 1.3 million (United Republic Tanzania, 2013), majority lives gardens (Fernandes 1985). These unique, well-developed agroforestry have been use centuries 1985; 2006b; Newark, 1991; Sébastien, 2010; However, over last decades, faced numerous associated human population growth changes land (Hemp critical importance Kilimanjaro's natural resources people's well-being livelihoods main source water 42,200 km2 large Pangani river basin 2005; 2010) important reservoir useful plants (Molina-Venegas, Mollel, Mollel 2017)) popular destination economically international tourism (Adili Robert, 2016) calls efforts ensure management. recent history started 1904 protection ‘Mount Forest’ continued reserve 1921 (Sébastien, establishment half-mile strip below 1941. This was established buffer provide wood other products 1991). Major milestones include reclassification above upper border (i.e. > ~2,700 national park 1973, listing National Park UNESCO World Heritage Site 1987 community-based practices 1998. Under status, belongs 40% Tanzanian already under protection, community committed increase (Keane 2020). Despite measures, adjacent habitats face many threats, logging, quarries, grazing, cultivation within forests, poaching, charcoal production outbreak fires 2006c; Lambrechts 2002; Noe, simplified model interactions societies. It identifies six components representing specific links them: (a) (biodiversity ecosystems, herein species habitats), (b) Nature’s Contributions People (NCP, contributions derive (Díaz 2018)), (c) (good quality life), (d) direct (e) indirect drivers change (f) anthropogenic assets interrelations. Direct climate- land-use change, over-exploitation, invasive pollution, demographic, economic, technological, policy institutional factors. explicitly inclusion multiple systems, such Indigenous Knowledge (ILK), analysing assessing As such, addresses fact representations human–nature relationships vary cultures according worldviews cosmologies, scientific ILK indigenous cultures. conducted 3-day workshop Moshi, September 2018. attended 73 participants (16 women 57 men), whom invited represent sectors communities. list invitees online search validated complemented informants. divided registered into five sectoral affiliation: 16 residents communities, farmers (herein ‘Community’), 14 researchers scientists (‘Research’), professionals (‘Conservation’), 17 forestry, agriculture governance (‘Resources’) 10 mainly drawn sector (‘Other’). Each moderated one facilitator chair elected members respective groups. primary language English, but material available Swahili. Swahili used discussions, ‘Community’ group. three data methods: group individual questionnaires ‘carousel-like’ session. regular plenaries set, explain recall context elements framework, back discussions gather feedback. aimed establish common sections covered (see Section 2.2.2). discussion, each distinguished agreed typology subsequently questionnaires. discussion preliminary mapping exercise during participant asked her/his geographic expertise printed map region depicting types. While areas assessments, did specifically interrogate definitions concept ‘nature’, languages (Coscieme During subsequent listed valued (IPBES component 1), NCP 2) 4 5). species, were indicate whereas NCP, discuss providing them trends future provision. before carousel session, formulated shared vision where live harmony nature. two questionnaires—herein ‘habitat’ ‘ecosystem services’—with open closed (Supplementary Material S1). Closed scored Likert-type scale. questionnaire collected about state factors driving 1, fill separate (as defined see section 2.2.1) or had knowledge, starting most ones. services’ of, 2), observed access With reference 2.2.1), deemed habitat(s) provide(s) them. Participants 45 60 min encouraged possible. Although familiar ecosystem services workshop, classified our analyses included IPBES/5/INF/24 aim session offer space suggest actors could contribute achieving Kilimanjaro. moved stops (each identified flipchart facilitator) represented levels action: individual/household, community, regional, international. At start, assigned propose corresponding level who entrusted actions. Answers flipchart. After min, next stop, discussed results predecessors suggested additional four changes, all governance. There no research ethics committee approved proposed protocols. Nevertheless, took very good care rights respected whole there coercion whatsoever. To sense injustice preferential treatment participation fully voluntary coercion, received personal invitations writing request confirmations participation. Information purpose input, format program what involved provided invitation written English reiterated beginning plenary together completely withdrawal possible any time. Thereby informed input would involved. All much welcomed orally consented inception workshop. strong spirit joint interests positive cordial atmosphere, appear necessary seek consent writing. pleased prospect contributing several expressed appreciation broad scope found especially compared earlier experiences thematically limited meetings run contexts. keen synthesized publications. anonymized responses publications, again inception. Anonymization oral achieved refraining recording identity contributors. Moreover, numeric ID rather than identifying when completing questionnaires, leaving anonymous. respected, designated leader responsible facilitate note-taker. designation note-taker given down responsibilities. doing so, organizers ensured merely played role moderators facilitated basis values. Group leaders collect relay concerns discomfort organizers, feedback received. Regular led accompanied principal investigator (M.F), project coordinators (C.H A.H) facilitators (C.A.M N.M), long-term residency and/or experience region, served occasions felt comfortable none sessions participant. substantial variation respondents naming habitats. Some organized highlands, midlands lowlands, others named higher detail made distinctions cover springs plantations; Table S1 Supplementary S2). comparison responses, standardized seven categories—alpine, (including forest), agroforestry, cropland, urban, freshwater grassland—and reported categories digitized maps check consistency Figure S2 correspondence habitats). Digitized (Figure S2) generated geographical system (QGIS Development Team, 2019) delineate above). For figures tables, excluded urban low sample size (n = 2). coded relating standard terminologies (Table S2, 2018; Martín-López grouped 18 nine clusters (Payne 2020): ‘Air Climate’, ‘Cultural’, ‘Energy Materials’, ‘Food Medicine’, ‘Habitat’, ‘Livelihoods’, ‘Pollination Pest Control’, ‘Soil Hazards’ ‘Water’ S3 introduced ‘Livelihoods’ category benefits point health general, earnings selling crops charcoal, tourism. Regional Assessment Europe Central Asia 2018a), recommended Conservation Actions Classification (v2.0) (Conservation Measures Partnership, 2016). example, categorized conversion degradation deforestation ‘Land-Use Change’ effects climate floods, storms hazards ‘Climate S4 followed similar protocol drivers, example ‘Demographic’; corruption, poor enforcement laws ‘Institutional’ same standard. ‘Land/Water management’ suggestions ‘afforestation’, ‘integrated ‘institutional development’ ‘establish environmental groups/committees’. processed visualized tidyverse package (Wickham R version 3.6.2 (R Core networkD3 r (Allaire 2017) visualize flows framework. tested whether (species habitats, actions) differed permutational multivariate analysis variance (PERMANOVA; Anderson, Specifically, significant (i) extent years; (ii) NCP; (iii) provision (iv) will (v) (vi); (vii) predictors. (v–vii) questionnaire, (ii–iv) questionnaire. implemented PERMANOVA adonis function 1,000 runs vegan (Oksanen account control false discovery rate, adjusted p-values Benjamini–Hochberg (BH) procedure (Benjamini Hochberg, 1995). applied conservative 5% significance threshold BH-adjusted p-values, (p-value 1) >0.05 <0.1 ‘marginally significant’ % threshold. filled (except 11 forms), resulting total 143 144 respectively. Of participants, 68 52 men) submitted corresponds 15 per except ‘Research’ ‘Other’ groups, only 9 respectively, contributed. number case corresponded ‘Resource’ 13 ’Research’ ‘Conservation’ exercise, indicated conducting ‘Moderated discussion’ S2), highlighted differences. ‘Resources’ focused outside live), assessed range patchwork places elevations, possibly following hotspots. organisms taxonomic resolution. Altogether plants, 29 mammal reptile amphibian eight fish, arthropod taxa, plankton, algae worms S5 resolution varied mammals birds level, genus invertebrates coarser (37 each), former (23 types) latter (15 types). lists resulted group, test statistical Based differ significantly interaction either. That is, consensus decreasing, decline 1 left, S6 particular, grassland almost unanimously negative 90% indicating declines condition proportion (27% 37 responses), predominant view declining (76%) (68%; coarse birds, trees) largely after classifying clusters, frequently mentioned ones Water (50% participants), Food Medicine (43%), Livelihoods (26%), Air Climate (24%) Energy Materials (19%; 2, statistically 1). cited (63%, n (57%, 14) (69%, 11) (77%, 13) (78%, 9). Forest (45% responses) Freshwater (22%) (particularly Water; Access declined years (where increased decreased access), reflecting general trend increasing expense non-material 3). 4). According answers, competition resources, combined degradation, has reduced Water, Materials, Medicine, NCP. education awareness programs, irrigation infrastructure improvements contributed improving Livelihood countering When forecast years, predicted past categories. marginally significant. category, species/genera value medicine, food firewood, primarily domestic edible animals, charismatic megafauna attract tourists. some elephants enhancing raiding threatening humans. wide Kilimanjaro’s Neither attribution nor effect detected (58%, 143), (31%), over-exploitation (15%) pollution (15%), respondent mentioning Demographic driver (29%), (10%) (8%). patterns held habitats: perceived non-urban belt, tied demographic 5), happy depends security, thriving economy employment, governance, education, justice, high quality, energy health. A rich culture future, fewer Further differen